Ex Parte SHIRAISHI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

12269959 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAISUKE SHIRAISHI, EIJI TAKAHASHI, and
TOMONORI URUSHIHARA
____________

Appeal 2012-006700
Application 12/269,9591
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1
and 18–27.2 Appeal Br. 3. An oral hearing was held on August 12, 2014.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nissan Motor Co.,
Ltd. Appeal Br. 4.
2 Claims 2–17 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2012-006700
Application 12/269,959

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and reads:
1. An engine control apparatus comprising:
an electric discharge device including a first electrode
with a dielectric material covering the first electrode and a
second electrode arranged opposite the first electrode on a
periphery of the dielectric material to produce radicals within a
combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine by a
non-equilibrium plasma discharge that is generated between
the first and second electrodes before autoignition of the air-
fuel mixture occurs, the first electrode including a first voltage
receiving end and a second engine attachment end with a long
thin conductive material that discharges non-equilibrium
plasma by a barrier discharge;
a voltage application device operatively coupled to the
first voltage receiving end of the first electrode for applying a
voltage between the first and second electrodes, such that the
non-equilibrium plasma generates the radicals within the
combustion chamber before an air-fuel mixture in the
combustion chamber undergoes autoignition;
a fuel supplying device arranged to form an air-fuel
mixture inside the combustion chamber; and
a control unit operatively coupled to the voltage
application device to vary a discharge start timing of the non-
equilibrium plasma discharge in accordance with a mechanical
load of the internal combustion engine, the control unit
selectively setting a discharge ending timing of the non-
equilibrium plasma discharge to occur after an intake valve of
the combustion chamber in which the radicals are generated has
opened and before the intake valve has closed during a single
combustion cycle.

Rejection
Claims 1 and 18–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Massholder (6,467,467 B1, issued Oct. 22, 2002),
Urushihara (6,267,097 B1, issued July 31, 2001), Kang (US 5,469,013,
Appeal 2012-006700
Application 12/269,959

3
issued Nov. 21, 1995), and Coates (US 2009/0114178 A1, published May 7,
2009).3

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1 and 18–28 as a group. Appeal Br. 11–23.
We select claim 1 to decide the appeal with respect to the group as to this
ground of rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
As to claim 1, Appellants that contend none of the applied references
discloses:
a control unit operatively coupled to the voltage
application device to vary a discharge start timing of the non-
equilibrium plasma discharge in accordance with a mechanical
load of the internal combustion engine, the control unit
selectively setting a discharge ending timing of the non-
equilibrium plasma discharge to occur after an intake valve of
the combustion chamber in which the radicals are generated has
opened and before the intake valve has closed during a single
combustion cycle.
Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner finds that Massholder discloses a non-equilibrium
plasma, dielectric barrier discharge plug controlled by a controller, and
optimizing the dielectric barrier discharge according to load. Answer 13.

3 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants indicate that claims 1 and 18–27 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kang, Massholder,
Miyakubo (JP 2001-020842 A, published Jan. 23, 2001), and Yoshino (US
2005/0183697A1, published Aug. 25, 2005). Appeal Br. 10. In the Answer,
however, the Examiner explains that Coates and Urushihara are part of the
rejection (Answer 6), but Miyakubo and Yoshino are removed from the
rejection as being redundant (id. at 9). The Examiner also indicates that the
“additional rejection” at page 18, paragraphs 78–79 of the Final Office
Action, is withdrawn. Id. at 9.
Appeal 2012-006700
Application 12/269,959

4
The Examiner finds that Urushihara discloses an engine system
including a controller to employ spark-assisted compression ignition.
Answer 13. In particular, the Examiner finds Urushihara discloses that the
spark discharge occurs when the intake valve is open (citing Fig. 14) and
discloses manipulating spark discharge timing in accordance with engine
load (citing Fig. 15). Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to use the “plasma assisted combustion” technique of Urushihara in
the system of Massholder because this technique is known for preventing
overheating of engine components and providing stable compression
ignition. Id. (citing Urushihara, col. 9, l. 53 – col. 10, l. 35). In addition, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to control the discharge
timing in the combination based on load, as taught by Massholder and/or
Urushihara. Id.
The Examiner finds that Kang discloses the structure of a non-
equilibrium plasma barrier discharge plug (citing Kang, Abstr.; Figs. 1a–2b).
Answer 13. The Examiner further finds that Coates discloses plasma
assisted combustion (id. (citing Coates ¶¶ 16–21)), and determines that
Coates’ description of plasma-assisted combustion “evidences the fact that
‘spark plugs’ and ‘non-equilibrium plasma barrier discharge plugs’ are
known functional equivalents . . . .” Id. at 14.
The Examiner explains how the combination of references will yield
an engine control apparatus comprising the claimed limitations. Answer 14–
15.
We have considered each of Appellants’ arguments presented in their
Briefs, but as discussed below, do not find them to be persuasive of
Examiner error. In this regard, Appellants contend that Massholder only
Appeal 2012-006700
Application 12/269,959

5
discloses triggering the dielectric barrier discharges at the mix-ignition time
and/or later, and that the mix-ignition time occurs in the latter half of the
compression stroke, during which time the intake valve is closed. Reply Br.
8. According to Appellants, the barrier discharge of Massholder occurs after
the intake valve closes, and thus, barrier discharge ends after the intake
valve closes. Id. Appellants acknowledge that Massholder teaches
optimizing barrier discharge according to load. Id. at 10 (citing Massholder,
col. 4, ll. 1–2).
Appellants appear to concede that the electric discharge device of
Kang can be used in Massholder’s system. Reply Br. 2 n. 1. Appellants also
appear to acknowledge that Coates provides evidence that non-equilibrium
plasma barrier discharge plugs can be used in engines in place of spark
plugs. Id. at 5.
Appellants contend that Urushihara does not provide any reason to
further modify Massholder’s system as modified by Kang. Reply Br. 2 n. 1.
In particular, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s stated reason of
preventing overheating of engine components for using the technique of
Urushihara in Massholder refers to the third embodiment of Urushihara,
which performs auxiliary sparking when the intake valve is closed (id. at 3
(see Urushihara, col. 9, l. 53 – col. 10, l. 20; Fig. 13)), but that the Examiner
relies on the fourth embodiment of Urushihara, in which the auxiliary spark
occurs when the intake valve is open (id. (see Urushihara, col. 10, ll. 21–35;
Fig. 14; see also Reply Br. 3–4)).
Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s stated reason of
providing for stable compression ignition for using the technique of
Urushihara in Massholder does not refer to the timing of the auxiliary spark
Appeal 2012-006700
Application 12/269,959

6
being performed during the time that the intake valve is opened. Reply Br.
4. Thus, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reason for modifying the
engine control of Massholder to use Urushihara’s technique would not meet
the claimed invention. Id. at 3–4.
Appellants also contend that Urushihara does not vary the timing of
ignition of the spark plug based on the mechanical load of the engine. Reply
Br. 4. Appellants thus contend there is no reason to modify the system of
Massholder and Kang to have the claimed discharge timing of the non-
equilibrium plasma discharge that is varied in accordance with mechanical
engine load. Id. at 5. Appellants also contend that Urushihara teaches use of
an auxiliary spark in conjunction with compression self-ignition that only
occurs in the low load region. Id. at 8. Thus, the combination of references
would not vary the discharge start timing based on engine load. Id.
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive. Claim 1 recites that the
control unit is operatively coupled to the voltage application device “to vary
a discharge start timing of the non-equilibrium plasma discharge in
accordance with a mechanical load of the internal combustion engine.”
Claim 1 does not, however, expressly recite any limitation that specifies how
the discharge start timing is varied “in accordance with” the mechanical
load. In addition, Appellants acknowledge that Massholder teaches
optimizing barrier discharge according to load. Appellants also
acknowledge that Kang’s electric discharge device can be used in
Massholder’s system.
Massholder discloses triggering DBDs [dielectric-barrier discharges]
“at the mix-ignition time and/or at a later time in the combustion cycle.”
Col. 3, ll. 65–67. However, this disclosure does not, without more, indicate
Appeal 2012-006700
Application 12/269,959

7
that barrier discharge cannot be performed “before the intake valve has been
closed during a single combustion cycle,” as claimed.
In addition, the Examiner found, and Appellants acknowledge, that
Urushihara discloses use of auxiliary sparking when the intake valve is open.
Answer 3 (see Urushihara, col. 10, ll. 21–35; Fig. 14). Appellants also
acknowledge that Urushihara teaches that formation of free radicals is
promoted by auxiliary sparking in both the third and fourth embodiments.
Reply Br. 4. Appellants further acknowledge that Urushihara teaches that
the auxiliary spark can be used when the intake valve is open to provide
stable compression ignition. Id. Urushihara discloses that the free radicals
promote combustion reactions, as also disclosed in Appellants’
Specification. See Urushihara, col. 9, l. 56 – col. 10, l. 4. Regarding the
fourth embodiment, Urushihara states “due to the opening of the intake
valve 14, auxiliary sparking takes place when a large amount of oxygen is
introduced into the combustion chamber 11, and also in this embodiment,
formation of free radicals is promoted by the auxiliary sparking as in the
third embodiment.” See Urushihara, col. 10, ll. 30–35.
Appellants’ contention that the Examiner’s reason for combining
Urushihara’s teaching with Massholder is not supported by Urushihara
because it relies on another embodiment in which auxiliary sparking is
performed when the intake valve is closed is not persuasive. See Reply Br.
3–4. Appellants have not persuasively shown that the advantages described
in Urushihara in regard to the third and fourth embodiments are mutually
exclusive, and thus, that the Examiner’s findings do not apply to the
embodiment in which the auxiliary spark occurs when the intake valve is
open.
Appeal 2012-006700
Application 12/269,959

8
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has articulated an adequate
reason with rational underpinnings to combine the teachings of Massholder,
Urushihara, Kang, and Coates to result in the claimed engine control
apparatus. Appellants have not shown by persuasive argument or technical
evidence that the Examiner’s combination would have been beyond the level
of ordinary skill in the art, or that the combination would not have yielded
predictable results. Thus, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1
and its dependent claims 18–28.

DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 18–28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls